Brammertz: We'll prove Karadžić’s guilt

Ahh the Hague, guilty until proven innocent huh? I wonder how many courts in the world work like that?

If Brammertz insists that Karadzic is guilty before trial, then you have to know that this whole trial is fixed and nothing more than a charade. How many years of court reruns must our Serbian leaders endure, if proof is obvious,then why does it take years to finalize no conclusions.
The Hague was unable to charge Milosevic and others because they have no proof. Maybe the Hague should charge the states that bombed Serbia's infrastructure, economy and cultural identity.

Mr Brammertz,

Your trial in search for the guilty verdict will be endless, time consuming and financial suicide...US can't afford and does not have the energy...global factors one must think about...and this factor is a typical trait of the US and UK...why do you search the bottom of the barrel in order to show the world your country is in control...

Enjoy while it lasts; in fact it will last as long as the current Belgrade government...Find yourself a job before next June.

Of copurse he says he is guilty. Brammertz is the PROSECUTOR, it's his role to assume guilt and try to prove it. If the Defense said that, or the judge, then you could complain about it.

Take note my dear Albanians. If the US promised you independence then it means diddly-squat just like Karadžić’s promise of immunity.

I think there may be some misunderstanding about what the "presumption of innocence" actually means in legal proceedings.

In a court of law, it is the judges whose job is to presume the accused to be innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor's job is to present evidence of guilt. If the evidence the prosecutor presents in court is not sufficient to convince the judges, then the accused goes free. The accused is not obligated to prove his innocence in court -- that is what the "presumption of innocence" means. However, a good defense lawyer will always do his/her best to present evidence that might cast doubt on prosecution's version of the facts in the case.

It is up to the judges to give the defendant the benefit of the presumption of innocence, until both sides have presented all the evidence for their respective cases. It is only at that point that the judges can bring a verdict.

But in this case Mr. Brammertz is just doing his job as a prosecutor. Professional ethics dictate that no prosecutor will bring an indictment against someone, unless the prosecutor is convinced that there is compelling evidence that the accused is guilty of a crime. If a prosecutor really believes that the person being accused is in fact innocent, then it would be prosecutorial misconduct to proceed to a trial.

That it why it is entirely proper for Mr. Brammertz to state in advance of the trial that he believes that he has enough evidence to prove Karadžić's guilt. If Brammertz didn't think the accused was guilty, he would be obliged to drop the case. But evidently he thinks he has the goods on Karadžić.

We will see in the trial whether the prosecutor can prove it to the satisfaction of the judges.

Ahh the Hague, guilty until proven innocent huh? I wonder how many courts in the world work like that?

Mr Brammertz,

Your trial in search for the guilty verdict will be endless, time consuming and financial suicide...US can't afford and does not have the energy...global factors one must think about...and this factor is a typical trait of the US and UK...why do you search the bottom of the barrel in order to show the world your country is in control...

Enjoy while it lasts; in fact it will last as long as the current Belgrade government...Find yourself a job before next June.

Take note my dear Albanians. If the US promised you independence then it means diddly-squat just like Karadžić’s promise of immunity.

Of copurse he says he is guilty. Brammertz is the PROSECUTOR, it's his role to assume guilt and try to prove it. If the Defense said that, or the judge, then you could complain about it.

If Brammertz insists that Karadzic is guilty before trial, then you have to know that this whole trial is fixed and nothing more than a charade. How many years of court reruns must our Serbian leaders endure, if proof is obvious,then why does it take years to finalize no conclusions.
The Hague was unable to charge Milosevic and others because they have no proof. Maybe the Hague should charge the states that bombed Serbia's infrastructure, economy and cultural identity.

I think there may be some misunderstanding about what the "presumption of innocence" actually means in legal proceedings.

In a court of law, it is the judges whose job is to presume the accused to be innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor's job is to present evidence of guilt. If the evidence the prosecutor presents in court is not sufficient to convince the judges, then the accused goes free. The accused is not obligated to prove his innocence in court -- that is what the "presumption of innocence" means. However, a good defense lawyer will always do his/her best to present evidence that might cast doubt on prosecution's version of the facts in the case.

It is up to the judges to give the defendant the benefit of the presumption of innocence, until both sides have presented all the evidence for their respective cases. It is only at that point that the judges can bring a verdict.

But in this case Mr. Brammertz is just doing his job as a prosecutor. Professional ethics dictate that no prosecutor will bring an indictment against someone, unless the prosecutor is convinced that there is compelling evidence that the accused is guilty of a crime. If a prosecutor really believes that the person being accused is in fact innocent, then it would be prosecutorial misconduct to proceed to a trial.

That it why it is entirely proper for Mr. Brammertz to state in advance of the trial that he believes that he has enough evidence to prove Karadžić's guilt. If Brammertz didn't think the accused was guilty, he would be obliged to drop the case. But evidently he thinks he has the goods on Karadžić.

We will see in the trial whether the prosecutor can prove it to the satisfaction of the judges.